Hacker News Reader

Comment by eridius | Hacker News Reader

If a game doesn't offer any way to pay to remove ads, it's an instant uninstall for me.

If a game does offer it, but doesn't let me play for long enough to decide whether I like the game before it starts serving up unskippable ads, I uninstall it.

Most games simply don't give enough time to decide if you even like it before they start throwing ads at you. That seems like a terrible policy in general, regardless of whether you have a "skip ads" IAP or not. You want to wait until the player has made up their mind about your game before you start degrading the experience. This seems like such an obvious thing I don't know why so many games are so bad about it.

View on HN

I’m about to release a fun little ambient physics based puzzle game on iOS and have been debating this. To me ads are a stain on what I consider my art. But at the same time I want to monetize and wonder if people will skip over a $1.99 download. What do you think? Ads with the option to unlock? Seems gross though... maybe free with paid version that includes level editor or additional level packs?

Maybe release a couple of levels for free and if they like it they can buy the full game?

I have made an app for iOS, and it is about helping children between on the ages 4-8 read. It took me 1 second to decide "free with ads" vs "0.99". It costs 0.99, and I don't regret the 'small' sales. I prefer that people's children are not tracked by advertisers, facebook (that bloody ping on 31.13.x.x) and other trackers.

Is sales income less than you'd expect with ads?

I'm surprised that COPPA allows devs to have geo-tracking of users who haven't confirmed they are over 13.

I just released a (beta) puzzle game on Google Play, and what I decided to do was make ads 100% opt-in but also have an IAP for removing even those.

It definitely will not generate as much revenue as an aggressively ad-monetized one, but hopefully it's still profitable.

I think the classic "shareware demo" model is a good one, have some free stuff to introduce the user and make sure they like the game, then give them a wall and tell them to pay if they want more. It's fair to them and fair to you. It doesn't violate their privacy, it makes sure your customers actually want to be your customers (reducing chargebacks because the game has an issue for someone) and you get paid without polluting your art.

I love the shareware concept. I think ads and baiting people into MTX due to the psychology of humans is making companies too much money to ignore.

I miss this model for games. Demo disks were my favorite thing in the world. I'd play a demo a dozen times or so before I decided that it was worth begging a parent to buy the game for me.

It has been a long time since I played games, but I thought games still had demos. In Steam, do you have to buy a game before playing it?

Unless it is a Free to Play game, you pay before you play. Some Early Access games start out free, but less and less now days.

Some games do have demos, but not that many.

In steam you can return for a full refund if you have played less than 2 hours within the first 14 days, so you effectively get a 2 hour demo.

To summarize the other comments:

Yes.

-Very few games provide demos.

-Steam allows refunds under certain conditions, but also reserves the right to ban accounts that abuse that system, and declines to define abuse. Therefore it's generally advisable to avoid using refunds to try games, and save them for when there is a issue.

So there is definitely a gap where demos would serve well.

Yes. As long as you clearly indicate upfront that it's a demo.

I actually like a "skill shareware" (my made up name) model in puzzle games. When you have lots of levels, you split them into groups. You can only advance to the next one if you solve all previous ones perfectly, (3 stars / 100% / some other metric) or pay for full unlock.

I've never been on the other side, so I don't know how well that converts. But as a customer, I love the idea. "Euclidea" does this for example: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hil_hk.euc... They also have IAP for dark mode.

As a customer it may be great, but this isn't great for the developer in my opinion. Perhaps it's just the way I play, but I will already refuse to advance until I've got a level fully beaten, so I'll basically keep at that until I get bored of your game or beat it fully and you'll never see a penny from me.

To add to this a bit, it also provides a motivation for developers to make games that are too hard and will force users to pay if they want to enjoy them, but people who play like I do will get bored quickly.

This is why I loved the old Peggle games from PopCap but hate the new mobile one.

IIRC the stats from the last time I published a mobile game, iPhone users were significantly more likely to actually pay for things so it's probably ok to just charge money. Personally, I did ads with paid feature unlock and ad removal because I was publishing on Android.

Free features to get the user to get used to the game and figure it out, and paid features that are unlocked.

App pricing is somewhat tricky, since most people hesitate to even pay $0.99. I personally wouldn’t just buy something without knowing if I’d like it or not. Descriptions and reviews may not always help in knowing that. Actually playing it certainly would.

Also consider keeping some exciting or challenging parts in the free set so that users can know what more to expect if they pay.

For a productivity app I have seen night and day difference in earnings between "paid upfront" and "free with iap". I started with the paid model and switched to freemium. In the months after the initial boost due to "apps gone free" scrapper sites I got as many iap sales in a month that I had accumulated in two years while the app was paid.

Paid upfront model is dead on iOS, unless you are some big shot company that will have their application featured on day 1.

For what it's worth, the only Android games I've ever paid money for are Snakebird, Ending, Super Hexagon, and a chess training app, and if I remember correctly all four were free no ads with paid additional levels. I am the type of person who deletes apps with too many ads. Look up Ending for a good model to emulate (it was a pleasant experience and it has a level editor) though I remember it having too few levels since I played through them very quickly.

Free with donation/extra for features.

I don't know why people even consider ads for games.

If a game/application has the "have ads" under the install button, i don't even install it to check it out. Because I know that even if i am not seeing ads, the framework is underneath the game, collecting data just the same.

Unless I know of your earlier games or I've had it recommended to me either personally or if you're lucky enough to be chosen for the Editor's Pick on the App Store i'm not very likely to pay for a game or apps in general.

I think level packs are pretty much a match made in heaven for puzzle type games, as are selling credits for hints.

Be sure to include at one or a few hours of gameplay for free, that seems like a nice balance. Updating with new level packs every now and then (both paid and free) is a good way to keep people excited and get additional income from people who really enjoy the game.

Selling additional color/texture themes might also be a way to increase sales.

Free, with $pay option for cosmetic upgrades, bonus levels, more save-game ability, and another non-core gameplay features.

Gentle house ads to upgrade to the paid version for more fun.

Publish it with ads; don't push enough ads that they take a relevant share of the player's time; if you have calm periods (like changing levels) prefer quick full screen ads on those periods; offer the option to pay for making the ads go away; make sure the ads really go away after somebody pays.

That is the best "user friendly, but viable" option I've seen in the wild.

As a user, that wouldn't work for me. The problem isn't the ads themselves, but that the presence of ads is proof positive that I'm being spied on.

> the presence of ads is proof positive that I'm being spied on

There is such a thing as non-targeted advertising. An app developer can solicit money from sponsors to have their ads included in the app and displayed at particular times without sending any data back to either the developer or the advertiser. This is how advertising worked back before every app started demanding a continuous Internet connection even for basic non-network functions.

Yes, there is indeed. But it's very rare, and I can't tell whether or not those are the sorts of ads being used, so I have to assume they're all bad.

Almost all app developers who include advertising are using third party libraries to do the ads, after all.

I'm working on an iOS game as well, and my plan of attack is to have a 'donate' button with different tiers ($1, $3, $5) that gets treated internally as an in-app purchase.

My personal opinion can be distilled from what the OP said. Let us try the game first. I'm happy to buy games, especially since I can get playstore credit from surveys. But if you bombard me with ads (at any point) I'll actually take the time to rate your app. I don't have a problem with ads, I have a problem with intrusive ads and dark patterns.

But lure me in. Show me your game is fun. With a puzzle based game you can have the first couple levels be free then make a popup about continue with ads or upgrade. I'd respect that a lot.

All this feedback is great. I'm working on a little competitive multiplayer game for Android (and soon iOS) as a side project.

I was thinking about showing ads after every other match w/ the option to pay out and now I think I'll only show them past a certain rank, or just put up a pay wall.

Keep in mind that the HN crowd is not always reflective of the broader population. There is a reason apps show adds they way they do - it's very effective in making a lot of $$.

The highest-grossing apps on the app store are not the ones that are crammed full of unskippable ads. Don't mistake that being a popular model for being an effective one.

Just keep mind that doing what you're proposing will probably cost you 90%+ of your revenue. I'd recommend simply not being abusive with ads (either showing excessive numbers or working with shady ad networks) and offer the small segment of your users willing to pay an IAP to opt out of the ads.

> If a game doesn't offer any way to pay to remove ads, it's an instant uninstall for me

You're more lenient than I am. I uninstall any application the instant I see an ad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com